Jump to content

Story's a bit mixed up, who won again?


bigcol

Featured Posts

So for those unfamiliar with this case, (and I don't think it is stated here?), how far did CRT's attempts to remove this boat actually go before they were persuaded to grant another restricted licence?

 

Were external solicitors instructed? Did it make it, or nearly make it, to court?

 

It does seem that increasingly that CRT are making substantial spend in cases where they don't get the outcome they are trying for. Money they spend on failed attempts to remove a boat, is of course money they don't have to spend on improvements.

 

The case seems to only to have got as far as a second look at the boats recorded movement record, before C&RT backed down.

Its in the original story.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was about to go to the solicitors. It was well advanced.

 

The bit I don't get is why they appear to keep going after what would not seem to be the 100% most obvious targets.

 

If they want to score a few successes to discourage others, there would appear to be an adequate number of boats that don't come close to an interpretation of "bone fide for navigation", and until all those have been dealt with, why would you reasonably pursue anybody you didn't have a cast iron case against?

 

There must be substantial costs associated with every failed attempt, so if you are going to allocate a fixed number of millions annually to enforcement, surely when trying to seek best "value for money", it is best to concentrate on easy wins.

 

(For clarity, I'm talking only about as a "business decision", not what is "morally right" - a different issue entirely.)

 

The case seems to only to have got as far as a second look at the boats recorded movement record, before C&RT backed down.

Its in the original story.

 

Bod

 

Not convinced - I suspect they had already incurred quite a lot of internal costs by that stage, but happy to see evidence that suggests large amounts of CRT time was not spent on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bit I don't get is why they appear to keep going after what would not seem to be the 100% most obvious targets.

 

If they want to score a few successes to discourage others, there would appear to be an adequate number of boats that don't come close to an interpretation of "bone fide for navigation", and until all those have been dealt with, why would you reasonably pursue anybody you didn't have a cast iron case against?

 

There must be substantial costs associated with every failed attempt, so if you are going to allocate a fixed number of millions annually to enforcement, surely when trying to seek best "value for money", it is best to concentrate on easy wins.

 

(For clarity, I'm talking only about as a "business decision", not what is "morally right" - a different issue entirely.)

 

Not convinced - I suspect they had already incurred quite a lot of internal costs by that stage, but happy to see evidence that suggests large amounts of CRT time was not spent on it.

 

 

This puzzles me too. It's almost as though the people making the decisions about who to go after never actually go out and see the boats the "100% most obvious targets" you mention.

 

Surely the decision makers are guided by the enforcement officers who know who is taking the p!ss. Or maybe there is something else going on we don't see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a lot of these threads about CC'ing and who is right and who is wrong, i have a mooring and will more than likely stay on that mooring for some time as i feel it suits my needs at the minute.

 

Going forward though in the future i would like to CC for a period to explore the system more and get a feel for living on the cut.

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards, i understand that some people would camp on a lovely spot near all amenities and this should not be encouraged, but would it be so bad if people are allowed to travel where and when they like as long as they do not overstay according to the restrictions applied to each area??

 

Its a genuine question and i am not trying to stoke up anything...

It's all a question of fairly sharing a scarce resource. The problem with people doing what they want to do is that we have congested areas and it's difficult for a passing visitor to turn up in the evening and find a mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a lot of these threads about CC'ing and who is right and who is wrong, i have a mooring and will more than likely stay on that mooring for some time as i feel it suits my needs at the minute.

 

Going forward though in the future i would like to CC for a period to explore the system more and get a feel for living on the cut.

 

Question i have though, and it might have been raised before but i dont recall reading it, what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards, i understand that some people would camp on a lovely spot near all amenities and this should not be encouraged, but would it be so bad if people are allowed to travel where and when they like as long as they do not overstay according to the restrictions applied to each area??

 

Its a genuine question and i am not trying to stoke up anything...

 

It's a "numbers game".

 

  1. If there are 100 "nice" mooring and 50 boats, there will be very few problems with access to moorings. Some of course, but not enough to cause real trouble.
  2. If there are 90 boats, there will be a significant amount of tension, but generally only minor problems
  3. With 100 moorings and 110 boats, any informal allocation system based on the assumption that everyone will act reasonably will collapse.

 

The real world has "grey areas" the example doesn't consider, but the numbers issue is essentially the same.

 

Management (in this case enforcement, methods to increase capacity or efficiency) can hold the system between the second and third states. If there are people involved, the system can be expected to "stick" half way between the second and third states. There's no reasonable external way to return it to the first state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bit I don't get is why they appear to keep going after what would not seem to be the 100% most obvious targets.

 

If they want to score a few successes to discourage others, there would appear to be an adequate number of boats that don't come close to an interpretation of "bone fide for navigation", and until all those have been dealt with, why would you reasonably pursue anybody you didn't have a cast iron case against?

 

There must be substantial costs associated with every failed attempt, so if you are going to allocate a fixed number of millions annually to enforcement, surely when trying to seek best "value for money", it is best to concentrate on easy wins.

 

(For clarity, I'm talking only about as a "business decision", not what is "morally right" - a different issue entirely.)

 

 

C&RT are an organization genetically incapable of getting anything right. Accept that as a fact, and then their conduct and performance suddenly begins to make sense.

Examine C&RT's parentage, and what do you have ? A bunch of politicians desperate to find any means available to them of cutting expenditure, . . . . and, British Waterways.

There never was any real hope, . . . from day one of their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a "numbers game".

 

  1. If there are 100 "nice" mooring and 50 boats, there will be very few problems with access to moorings. Some of course, but not enough to cause real trouble.
  2. If there are 90 boats, there will be a significant amount of tension, but generally only minor problems
  3. With 100 moorings and 110 boats, any informal allocation system based on the assumption that everyone will act reasonably will collapse.

 

The real world has "grey areas" the example doesn't consider, but the numbers issue is essentially the same.

 

Management (in this case enforcement, methods to increase capacity or efficiency) can hold the system between the second and third states. If there are people involved, the system can be expected to "stick" half way between the second and third states. There's no reasonable external way to return it to the first state.

This is all true, but there's an even more fundamental reason why CRT don't allow boats to shuffle between 2 locations.

 

Money.

 

Many liveaboards take a home mooring because they are tied to an area. They pay handsomely for that. If you could stay tied to a very limited area without paying for a mooring, many people would do that.

 

It would lead to less revenue for CRT through their direct managed moorings and less revenue to private mooring providers, which would lead to boatyards and marinas going bust.

 

Having a boat and expeciting to shuffle up and down a short stretch of canal is inherently selfish as all boaters ultimately suffer from the reduced revenues caused.

 

I know that's a contraversial view but there you go.

 

The biggest single issue facing the waterways over the next few years is that of reduced funding. We shall see what happens but I expect a crisis point to be reached in 5-10 years when canals may be closed.

 

I have very little love for CRT, but its they who are responsible for our canals and restricting their revenue streams can only be bad.

 

I just wish CRT would drop their core policy of pissing off boaters at every single opportunity.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examine C&RT's parentage, and what do you have ? A bunch of politicians desperate to find any means available to them of cutting expenditure, . . . . and, British Waterways.

There never was any real hope, . . . from day one of their existence.

Part of me thinks Tony's right while the rest of me just hopes he isn't. But when the government basically tries to cut juvenile offending by closing youth clubs, tries to encourage literacy by closing iibraries and boost the economy by ensuring every industry in the country is foreign owned, you can't really expect them to give a toss (or any money) to a decaying transport network that a small electorally unimportant minority care about (and that they can't flog to the Chinese). I'm 66, and I think the system will more or less last my boating life out, but I'll be surprised if much of it is navigable by the end of my actual lifetime. I grew up going for walks by the derelict Chichester canal, and will probably end up simliarly on the Macc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well the first thing you have missed is that there is no requirement to CC according to law.
There's no requirement by law to do a lot of things, however...

 


The law stops you 'drifting backwards & forwards' - " the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for........"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there needs to be enforcement but only for over staying. If someone is to be denied a licence because they've had to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc. that is something of a ridiculous line that's being drawn, don't you think Mike?

 

Keith

So I can shuttle a boat between two moorings half a mile apart, staying only 14 days on each, for a whole year?

 

We had a lot of people doing that locally (Though not a CRT navigation) overstaying a week or two on one 48 hour mooring, and then moving to the other one. As a result, space for visitors and people without a home mooring who were moving much further was much reduced, so the council who administered the moorings made it one 48 hour period on either, then no return within 7 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is there are no fixed rules on distance / time etc, and as such whether a boat owner is taking the p!ss or not comes down to individual opinions, in this case it seems that the enforcement officer thought the boater was taking the P and put the boat under enforcement but when the movements were re-examined (probably by other members of CRT) it was found that while the boater may not have been moving as much as CRT would like to see it did not warrant a refusal to license.

 

While others would probably disagree with me I would like to see mapping of the network broken down into "sections" or "places" as defined by CRT, while there will be many that disagree with "being told how far they must go" etc etc it would at least give us as boaters (whether CC or not) some clear information about how CRT are measuring our movements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While others would probably disagree with me I would like to see mapping of the network broken down into "sections" or "places" as defined by CRT, while there will be many that disagree with "being told how far they must go" etc etc it would at least give us as boaters (whether CC or not) some clear information about how CRT are measuring our movements

 

Agreed - the maps that 'escaped' from the C&RT consultation would have been a great step forward - unfortunately C&RT do not have the legal right to define the distance required, and whilst many would like to see them it only takes one person to say "I am not going to comply with your illegal conditions - take me to court"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bit I don't get is why they appear to keep going after what would not seem to be the 100% most obvious targets.

 

If they want to score a few successes to discourage others, there would appear to be an adequate number of boats that don't come close to an interpretation of "bone fide for navigation", and until all those have been dealt with, why would you reasonably pursue anybody you didn't have a cast iron case against?

 

There must be substantial costs associated with every failed attempt, so if you are going to allocate a fixed number of millions annually to enforcement, surely when trying to seek best "value for money", it is best to concentrate on easy wins.

 

(For clarity, I'm talking only about as a "business decision", not what is "morally right" - a different issue entirely.)

 

Not convinced - I suspect they had already incurred quite a lot of internal costs by that stage, but happy to see evidence that suggests large amounts of CRT time was not spent on it.

 

Oh most certainty very excessive, internal costs had been incurred, only to be wasted, when the "evidence" was properly looked at.

Will this wasted cost be explained?

I won't be holding my breath.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreed - the maps that 'escaped' from the C&RT consultation would have been a great step forward - unfortunately C&RT do not have the legal right to define the distance required, and whilst many would like to see them it only takes one person to say "I am not going to comply with your illegal conditions - take me to court"

 

 

Who does have the right define the distance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is there are no fixed rules on distance / time etc, and as such whether a boat owner is taking the p!ss or not comes down to individual opinions, in this case it seems that the enforcement officer thought the boater was taking the P and put the boat under enforcement but when the movements were re-examined (probably by other members of CRT) it was found that while the boater may not have been moving as much as CRT would like to see it did not warrant a refusal to license.

 

While others would probably disagree with me I would like to see mapping of the network broken down into "sections" or "places" as defined by CRT, while there will be many that disagree with "being told how far they must go" etc etc it would at least give us as boaters (whether CC or not) some clear information about how CRT are measuring our movements

 

I once worked for a manager (the most incompetent person I have ever known) whos main objective was to re-organise the business to make it easier for him to manage. I think you are making the same error here.

We could have enforced visitor moorings, enforced routes, and enforced dates and times when a boat moves from one place to another. Marina based boats could be forced to only leave the marina on a pre booked date. We could make the whole waterway so regimented that nobody wants to use it, except for those who choose to ignore the rules of course.

 

(Incompetent manager caused business to collapse and I got early retirement at 51 so it worked out good for me!)

 

...............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I once worked for a manager (the most incompetent person I have ever known) whos main objective was to re-organise the business to make it easier for him to manage. I think you are making the same error here.

We could have enforced visitor moorings, enforced routes, and enforced dates and times when a boat moves from one place to another. Marina based boats could be forced to only leave the marina on a pre booked date. We could make the whole waterway so regimented that nobody wants to use it, except for those who choose to ignore the rules of course.

 

(Incompetent manager caused business to collapse and I got early retirement at 51 so it worked out good for me!)

 

...............Dave

I really couldn't give a **** about managing the system, I just want to know what our movements are being measured against (since at the moment we have no way of knowing).

 

For example if I want to spend a few weeks seeing friends around Braunston, Daventry, Barby, Onley and Willoughby I would probably initially moor my boat somewhere near the A45 bridge at Braunston (close to bus stops etc), obviously I can stay there for up to 14 days but then have to move on (fair enough) but if I wanted to spend another week in the general area how far do I need to go to avoid being classed as having overstayed? is moving up to the barby bridge far enough? what about the section of canal behind Onley? or do I need to go as far as Rugby

 

 

edited for typo

Edited by Jess--
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Who does have the right define the distance?

 

Nobody does, nobody ever has done, nobody ever will do and, in fact, very few think there is any need to, . . . the main exceptions to that being C&RT, their dedicated apologists, and a few IWA hangers-on.

You could ask them to confirm that when you're asking ~ " what is wrong with drifting backwards and forwards?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most telling part is that, when his boat movement record(created by C&RT) was examined the Trust withdrew and granted a 6 month licence.

Bod

And that suggests to me that on scrutiny and comparing records CRT were satisfied to the level of satisfaction a court would require, that he had met the requirements of the act. CRT rules cannot override the legislation. Thus I feel he should have received a standard 12 month license. By not doing so I believe CRT are breaching the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Who does have the right define the distance?

Nobody. There is no requirement to travel any minimum distance. The law simply says the boat must be used for 'bona-fide' navigation. A judge has said that this means that it's 'temporal not geographical'. In layman's terms this means that the intent behind the movement is the key thing.

What is the reason for a boat's travel pattern? If it's to stay near work, it's not bona-fine.

I grew up by the Woolwich Ferry. It motors back and forth across the Thames over a distance of a few hundred yards. It is bona-fide navigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody. There is no requirement to travel any minimum distance. The law simply says the boat must be used for 'bona-fide' navigation. A judge has said that this means that it's 'temporal not geographical'. In layman's terms this means that the intent behind the movement is the key thing.

What is the reason for a boat's travel pattern? If it's to stay near work, it's not bona-fine.

I grew up by the Woolwich Ferry. It motors back and forth across the Thames over a distance of a few hundred yards. It is bona-fide navigating.

 

Absolutely correct - however at what point does 'near to work' become 'not near to work', and does that mean that anyone working (at a fixed location) cannot CC ?

 

"I go 1 mile past work and moor, then 2 weeks later I go 1 mile back past work and moor for 14 days" repeated ad-infinitum

 

" I go 1 mile past work and moor for 14 days, I then go another 4 miles and moor for 14 days, I then go another 5 miles and moor for 14 days, after a couple of months of this, and being 20+ mils away from work I start the return journey"

 

Which, neither, or both of these scenarios is then bona-fide navigation ?

If the fact then bona-fide navigation is down to the reasons of the navigation ( ie to be near work) than surely neither can comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really couldn't give a **** about managing the system, I just want to know what our movements are being measured against (since at the moment we have no way of knowing).

 

For example if I want to spend a few weeks seeing friends around Braunston, Daventry, Barby, Onley and Willoughby I would probably initially moor my boat somewhere near the A45 bridge at Braunston (close to bus stops etc), obviously I can stay there for up to 14 days but then have to move on (fair enough) but if I wanted to spend another week in the general area how far do I need to go to avoid being classed as having overstayed? is moving up to the barby bridge far enough? what about the section of canal behind Onley? or do I need to go as far as Rugby

 

 

edited for typo

 

In my ideal world the answer is yes you can do this, and if one of those friends is unwell you can stay in that area for six months (with a phone call to CaRT and a short move every 14 days) . What you can't do is stay there for ten years, or stay for three months on a prime visitor mooring.

Its so very simple, its bona fide navigation and reasonable behaviour. Trying to make rules to cope with every eventuality is not realistic, there will always be grey areas and there will always be people who ignore the rules or misinterpret the rules for their own ends.

And sadly there will always be people who will mount a legal challenge to any rules that cause them any inconvenience, more rules will just result in more legal challenges!

 

.................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be as simple as to zone off a canal, from bridge/post/landmark to another bridge/post/landmark is zone A, next zone B and next one zone C, only 14 days are permitted in a zone, then you are not allowed to return to a zone for 28 days, meaning it pushes you into Zone C before you can go back to zone A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct - however at what point does 'near to work' become 'not near to work', and does that mean that anyone working (at a fixed location) cannot CC ?

 

"I go 1 mile past work and moor, then 2 weeks later I go 1 mile back past work and moor for 14 days" repeated ad-infinitum

 

" I go 1 mile past work and moor for 14 days, I then go another 4 miles and moor for 14 days, I then go another 5 miles and moor for 14 days, after a couple of months of this, and being 20+ mils away from work I start the return journey"

 

Which, neither, or both of these scenarios is then bona-fide navigation ?

If the fact then bona-fide navigation is down to the reasons of the navigation ( ie to be near work) than surely neither can comply.

What I understand is there has to be a reason for the navigation which is related to the boat not a need to keep in a given area for work, school etc.

 

So could the following be classified as acceptable reasons - watering the boat - then mooring nearby for 14 day - getting the boat pumped out :) toilets then mooring nearby for 14 days - replenishing supplies - etc oh going to see this or that site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.